tv [untitled] January 21, 2012 6:01am-6:31am PST
president hechanova: may be a summary[.oy h possible, to have the least until the february meeting. their budget is also due. we're working on it. it is probably the same people that are doing the counting that are working on the finances. i want to be fair to them. president hechanova: sure. knowing the time constraints and especially with the importance of. >>. make it known that we are reviewing our budget and what we pay the city attorney. president hechanova: additional questions? >> i do have some.
where the department parks their parking lot, the cost of that is borne by >> we are charged by the department of real estate. the parking lot, as far as i know, belongs to caltrans. the city contracts with them. then it is charged out to us as part of our rent. ö1çft>> is that flat all these s or has it continued to rise? >> i believe it is something like $175 first base and it has not increased. in terms of the grant itself, there still charging us $1.88 per square foot and that's the same thing they charged several years ago. they have not increased it. they have not provided us any information for next year yet.
their budget is still being worked on. their instructions over the last several years is to keep things flat because of the budget situation for everyone else. president hechanova: ok. on the cost-of-living increase in lieu of where the union -- is it time and a half on overtime, or just a flat standards -- ÷=ç president hechanova: the next one is on the mou's. do we receive an accountability report of what their performance has been -- i know this might not be a budget thing, but it might influence the additional funding that we may look at with the mou's with our respective
housing alliances. >> is this the agreement that we have with the sor's or the unions? president hechanova: probably -- there are issues with the bedbugs and all of the other categories that come into play. /vñare they being effective or? >>ï are site visits made on the code enforcement. there is document. there is data received on a quarterly basis. in the contract, we specified what they are needed to meet.
the quality would be under housing. quality-control thing would be under housing. >> commissioners, with respect to the courcode enforcement outreach program and the department of public health with respect to the collaborative, we meet with those groups at least once a month. they also participate, like the @ they provide information to us. they can even be working with us on a daily basis with the inspectors. when the housing inspectors go out -- with the sro task force, they can meet on a daily basis with those individuals when they are going into presidential tells with respect to bedbugs, heat, and all the other
violations within the housing code. yl6ú=tiwhen it starts to rain, l have leaky fixtures. sometimes, when the inspector leaves, we do not always know what the conditions are in the buildings. we will work with them on a daily basis on that. they provide us with reports. those are discussed in detail at the monthly meetings. we participate with them on additional things. you talked earlier about community meetings. we are invited throughout the year to various groups community meetings. the group that was just up here -- we have been invited to their meetings and we have participated in that. we also participate in other training sessions that may be spearheaded by another department. when the health department does training on bedbugs, we make presentations on that.
we are there on an annual basis on the panel. there are some things that are not specifically in the budget, but my time and others time -- we are participating in these things to get the information programs. as far as quantitatively judging the effectiveness of outreach with respect to the s they are doing a variety of services from translation to outreach to being in the community, to do referrals, to be an intermediary with things like a leaky faucets. it's not always easy to say what the effectiveness is. i will tell you anecdotally, they are very effective.
we can have a situation of walking out of a common area of a hotel in not knowing what the conditions are in their rooms because people may be afraid to open their doors. the of rich people have been able to get in. i will give you an example. we had an elderly gentleman in the 1940's. he was so afraid to let us in. it took months to have the inspector gain his trust. that started with the development center getting in and getting his confidence. then he would let us in and wens room. that's not always something we can readily quantify, but i can tell you that it really makes a difference with respect!imo!$jño quality of life issues. commissionerr3 walker: thank yo. it's really a difficult issue dealing with the senate community and the landlord --
with the attecommunity and the landlord community. with respect to senior outreach, we are proposing to expand the budget $148,000. would that be sufficient to deal more with those issues? you were at the hearings. you know the things that are falling through the cracks. >> i can address that. president hechanova: maybe this is something we can address later on. commissioner walter ok. i'm just asking. >> the scope of work that was requested in the rfp's was a combination of work done by housing and done by thep
group was. it was specific about being culturally confidence and in the community and the sort of thing. it was generally about -- oh, yes. population is very low income, elderly, disabled sro tenants that are at risk of homelessness. it is a matter, i believe, of the program people, rosemary, her group, and the sro group's to look at and try to see what the program could be or is now and could be. >> i think my main concern would be that we are affected with
their contributions to the program, and if it is going to be more effective, we will have to go from the basis of something that's measurable that could be a practical way of making it better. we cannot go at a social basis of saying we need more, but we need more of what to do what. those are things that iu9.&bo will influence to the degree the budget, but at the same time, we are mindful that it is important to the city of san francisco. president hechanova: commissioners, additional questions? commissioner lee: i would like to ask about the training. and. budgets -- training and travel budget. i see the proposed budget for fiscal years 2012-2013 is
$324,000. how realistic is that? is that for training for everybody in the department? wxit averages over $1,000 per person. >> this is what we did. we went to each of the areas, as we have done in the past. we asked them to look at what is that they need in order to stay educated about the changes. my:]9%some of them are relatede other codes. plumbing has a professional group. electrical has a professional group. the increase is only -- and not have training or have minimal amounts of training.
the increase is approximately $65,000 more. oneé.íptbt of the reasons we'pss because we stopped training when we ran out of money. when the economy tanks, we said, how can we send all these people to training and not have -- because they got laid off. in terms of how feasible is it is -- it's hard for people to -%dñ get training. it does affect the services. we are cognizant of that, but it is still]//;zí,÷ needed. commissioner lee: how does that translate into the number of hours not delivering services to the public? how many days off will these employees have to take to go to
these classes? $325,000 is quite a bit. >> we can summarize this, not just by the department, but what types of things they're going to. some people call it one thing and it is something else. there is calvo week that is -- >> five days at $150 per class. >> people usually only take a half day class. the problem is that it is all one week. if it was spread out, it would be different and would not affect people asñ$:hpúk÷ much. because it is all one week, and since the large number of people that are going our inspectors,
we have to trade off our schedule. commissioner lee: sure. >> we have been doing this for many years. we know that we will be difficult. >> i would like to add something. what is happening is also that the department is required by the state to have certified access inspectors. that's by the year 2014. that training alone is $3,500. the certification is $3,500 per inspector. the training is about the same amount of money per inspector. it is a full week of training that they have to go to and then they have to take a test and be certified. we have to have a sufficient number of those inspectors in the building department by the year 2014. bdñ%ñgcommissioner lee: how ma? >> we are looking for at least 20. >> what certification?
>> certified program specialist. it is the disabled access inspector. commissioner lee: future meetings, i would like to discuss that, as well. it would be interesting to see how that works. i'm sure the small business community would be interested in that, too. >> i feel very positive about the amount, given that we are now doing the training. that training just makes the personal and staff perform at a category that we ensure the future of whattktcm8a services e department will continue to provide. it does not go away. it leverages the benefit to the public col. commissioner lee: i am not against training. we need to keep in mind how realistic these numbers are. if it means all our employees
taking off one day to go training, does that mean our department stops? we need to look at whether that is really feasible or not. >> from the standpoint of the overall budget, looking at where we can make some savings that we could reallocate to elsewhere, the category of may be the fees from the city's attorneys and other things that we basically end up having to shoulder. that could be reallocated to equipment or personnel. commissioner lee: why is it so expensive, director? >> its a very specialized program. it takes a specialized teacher to actually come to the city and teach the inspectors while they are in class. we have been scheduled so that it will not stop the service provision.
some inspectors will go some days. other inspectors will go other days. will not impact the service of the department. we also do that with all the training that week. we have some inspectors go on certain days. the staff and the supervisors make sure that they have enough staff to cover that days work, or the other inspectors pick up more inspections to cover it. we never lose the service to the public. president hechanova: ok. great. - one typo on the major upcoming projects. the sales force project is probably $2 million, as opposed to $20 million. >> no. it is $20 million. president hechanova: fabulous. i thought it was just $2 million. >> we will double check that,
but weaver told by our staff -- but we were told by our staff that it was $20 million. it is six large buildings. president hechanova: ok. any more questions? >> public comment on item number four? >> good morning, commissioners. president hechanova: you might have to switch to the other one. >> there we go. >> good6)÷@ mission for responsible growth. just one comment about recovery monitoring damages. in the private sector, at least when you have been wronged by somebody in a case that might
justify suing and individual or entity for damages, part of that discussion when you are talking to an attorney, as far as the chances of being able to find a judgment in favor of what you want to sue for, couple to the discussion is a discussion on the likelihood that you will be able to recover those damages. to get to that point involves an investment of your time and money. certainly, if you find out that the person who has wronged you may be in trouble financially in the first place has no access to bassets to be recovered, you would make an intelligent business decision to cut your losses and move on. when you are talking about pursuing damages from entities or businesses that you would have a reasonable chance that you would be able to recover those damages -- in the event
that you are confident that you can find a judgment in your favor. tmb thank you. president hechanova: thank you. >> any additional public comment? m- that this is the first hearing of the budget. there is no action as far as voting. as was mentioned earlier, there may be a special meeting that has to be heard a couple of times. thank you. item number five, discussion and possible action on code amendments under the bic jurisdiction. requiring flue vent terminations to be located at least four feet from a property line.
>> good morning, commissioners. i am the chief plumbing inspector. in discussion to the plumbing amendment, section 510.6.2.6, and this is a requirement for the flue vent to be four feet from a property line. since we did not have an adoption -- that was removed. it came into play in that section. they took it verbatim, exactly what is said. they told me the best thing would be to put an amendment in. one of the questions we have had here -- we have zero property line.
consumers having someone come to their property and putting it on the property line is ok. the problem is, if the next-door neighbor decides to build on top of their property and go higher than that location -- that becomes a problem. i'm asking if you would approve the change, the amendment, it to the plumbing code in san francisco. commissioner lee: what is it now? >> 0. it used to be four feet. you do have different types of categories. the different locations, they do